Some times ago I've submitted some of this images at a Geologist of University without say to him "where" these images were taken.
I simply said that in his opinion and for his knowledge, those images were taken by "microscopical" instruments because on earth there was'n
nothing to compare that. The squared angle are tipycal of artificial structures or microscopic structures that assume such form because of magnetic
field or other alterations, but absolutely not natural. This why on earth there is nothing of some sort (only little patterns like Giants Causeway in
Ireland or other "Natural wanderfuls") and in so huge extension (as I claimed, dozens Km. square or more). When I said him that these images were
satellite images, he do not more talk whit me because (I think) he thought I was joking.

These structures are on an area of dozens Km. square and whit the same orientation. If you check carefully on Google Mars and zoom in, you can see
many details that geology can't explain as "naturals".

Will you concede it could be natural.
If you spent the same amount of time checking out the geology of the areas you look at using google mars i think you will find the area in question is
rich in basalt. and as for the size of the area this reading material here
www.answersingenesis.org...
will tell you that a few kilometers of square and column basalt is more likely the answer.

Ha! Now you have given them proof that the martians were here millions of years ago and built Devil's Tower! If my memory serves me correctly,
columnar basalt can have very large crystals, depending on the geologic forces and the time that they are acting during formation?

Not that long ago we were treated to photos of sand dunes on mars that were supposed to be proof of ongoing excavations by the MARTIANS, they could
even spot the machines that were doing the digging. Har har!

Originally posted by remymartin
Will you concede it could be natural.
If you spent the same amount of time checking out the geology of the areas you look at using google mars i think you will find the area in question is
rich in basalt. and as for the size of the area this reading material here
www.answersingenesis.org...
will tell you that a few kilometers of square and column basalt is more likely the answer.

Not a chance. I really appreciated the black and white photos with the close ups that showed detail. There is not even a 1% chance that this is
nature made. Im not even going to explain it, for a critical mind simply looks at the detail and understands some of the basics of natural versus
manmade artifacts.

Mars is a very big conspiracy and these are incredible photographic evidence of this.
Its really good to see who posts on a thread like this and what they say, repeatedly.

Geology can't explain this architeture as "natural".
Notice the simmetry of the structure and other unusual details.
These buildings seems a Temple and with wide staircases and has a length of 80 meters.

Discovery of columnar jointing on Mars

We report on the discovery of columnar jointing in Marte Valles, Mars. These columnar lavas were discovered in the wall of a pristine,
16-km-diameter impact crater and exhibit the features of terrestrial columnar basalts. There are discontinuous outcrops along the entire crater wall,
suggesting that the columnar rocks covered a surface area of at least 200 km2, assuming that the rocks obliterated by the impact event were
similarly jointed. We also see columns in the walls of other fresh craters in the nearby volcanic plains of Elysium Planitia–Amazonis Planitia,
which include Marte Vallis, and in a well-preserved crater in northeast Hellas.

Have you any skills in geology? No I thinK No.
Everyone has its opinion and I try to submit this using logic and trying to remain on this road.

There are people who speak about "Ghosts" here on ATS and that, following your opinion, would not only have to be hunted but also perhaps locked up
in a lunatic asylum?

If you want to post logically you need to be a little more objective regarding the subject matter. If you only want people to agree with you there is
little point posting on ATS, unless you have a convincing argument.

You have decided what they are, people disagree with you and give you counter points based on known facts, where is your logical argument to counter
these known facts?

Have you any skills in geology? No I thinK No.
Everyone has its opinion and I try to submit this using logic and trying to remain on this road.

There are people who speak about "Ghosts" here on ATS and that, following your opinion, would not only have to be hunted but also perhaps locked up
in a lunatic asylum?

I don't need skills in Geology to tell that's nothing to look at
I think "you", need to get out more, you're trying to find something in those photos when there simply isn't anything there.
As for ghosts, not at all, I believe in ghosts, I've experienced paranormal activity myself
Your photos show nothing, except what appears to be rock formations, there's nothing else there
It's the same kinda picture as the "face" on mars.

That is clearly not an "artificial megolith"...... as it has been eloquantly pointed out it looks natural. Also just because something looks
different to something we may see on earth does not mean it is artificial........we are talking of another planet with different techtonic and
errosional processes.

I realize that normally all you have to do to debunk something like this is do a quick google images search and post what you find. But are you
serious with these photos? So far, NONE of the earth-rock photos have been anywhere close to looking like these rocks on Mars.

No, I don't think these are buildings or structures of any kind, but I certainly think they deserve some attention.

You are all so quick to call BS on someone who creates a post like this. Well I am calling BS on you! Saying that the photos you found prove or
disprove anything about these supposed megalithic structures is absolute absurdity. Come on, you have to try harder than that.

That said, you may be correct, but your photos do not properly support your argument. Find better photos, and this thread will die, thus you
succeed.

At the same time, to the OP:

I think you should try explaining in detail what parts of these rocks specifically led you to believe these are not natural. Randomly placed arrows
are not sufficient. Try telling us your story, for example: "at first I thought it was nothing, but then I noticed _____ and that led me to notice
_____, which made me wonder if they are structures of some kind."

Something like that might get some people to give it a second look.

Oh, and Im not interested in any pointless ego-boosting bickering, so any attacks on me personally will be indiscriminately ignored.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.